This thread is in response to Jim Thorton's thread about his AA time being disallowed.I think that if a swimmer swims in a USMS sanctioned meet and that the time gets to the "official" Top Ten list that it should count.Otherwise one could go back and check the length of ,say the Amarillo pool from the first Masters Nationals and if it was 1 cm short disallow the swims.There must be a statute of limitations and I think it should be when the official TT times are posted.
Well that is already the rule, it is just how you interpret "on file with USMS," which is the phrase used in the rule book for both records and TT. Our current practice is basically: for records it means it must be in the central database, for non-record TTs it means on file with the LMSC (which are of course part of USMS).
So, specifically in the case of the NBAC meet, it sounds like rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed (even allowing for current practices of non-record TT measurements being on file with the LMSC), as the rule states the times "shall not be accepted unless certification of course length accompanies them or is on file with USMS or FINA". This is where people are having issues with accepting the whole situation. A major rule wasn't followed, in admittedly good faith, but it doesn't change the fact that a rule wasn't followed. This is why I had said a while back that Jim wouldn't have been nearly as upset if his times hadn't made it into the preliminary TT- it would have been easy enough to say that rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed and therefore his time wasn't able to be included.
...And just this year we also changed the policy and the Guide To Operations for TTRs so that all new pool certifications, not just for pools that had records set, should be sent into Walt so that he can add them to the database. Walt tells me that these two changes have resulted in a surge of submissions of measurements to him; it's a start.
Maybe full implementation in E2EEM is not needed but it would help a lot. At the very least having the certification info in a real database, accessed thru a web form, would be a vast improvement over what we have now: an Excel spreadsheet that some people have trouble reading. The reason E2EEM implementation would be helpful is, among other things, it would standardize LMSC practices and (hopefully) force everybody to input measurements...
Although I feel bad that Walt has lots of extra work, I'm glad the policy is now to have people send in measurements to a centralized place. I've never really understood why it's taken this long to implement a change in policy for something that is this important. And I agree that the implementation of E2EEM will help immensely, but I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.
...Realize also that currently the single most common "violation" of the LMSC Standards (ie, USMS' "best practices" document) is the timely uploading of meet results. I may be misremembering, but someone at Convention told me that compliance with the results standard (S8 on the standards document) is something like 50-60% by LMSC. Adding additional measurement requirements to the process thru E2EEM (ie, measurements must be included with the results) would make things worse.
Oh trust me- on this one, I know. I've heard parts of many a LMSC Development conference call talking about this. Although, I think at this point, the compliance rate isn't quite that bad. I think it was that low at implementation, but it's gotten better as the standards have been in place longer.
Well that is already the rule, it is just how you interpret "on file with USMS," which is the phrase used in the rule book for both records and TT. Our current practice is basically: for records it means it must be in the central database, for non-record TTs it means on file with the LMSC (which are of course part of USMS).
So, specifically in the case of the NBAC meet, it sounds like rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed (even allowing for current practices of non-record TT measurements being on file with the LMSC), as the rule states the times "shall not be accepted unless certification of course length accompanies them or is on file with USMS or FINA". This is where people are having issues with accepting the whole situation. A major rule wasn't followed, in admittedly good faith, but it doesn't change the fact that a rule wasn't followed. This is why I had said a while back that Jim wouldn't have been nearly as upset if his times hadn't made it into the preliminary TT- it would have been easy enough to say that rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed and therefore his time wasn't able to be included.
...And just this year we also changed the policy and the Guide To Operations for TTRs so that all new pool certifications, not just for pools that had records set, should be sent into Walt so that he can add them to the database. Walt tells me that these two changes have resulted in a surge of submissions of measurements to him; it's a start.
Maybe full implementation in E2EEM is not needed but it would help a lot. At the very least having the certification info in a real database, accessed thru a web form, would be a vast improvement over what we have now: an Excel spreadsheet that some people have trouble reading. The reason E2EEM implementation would be helpful is, among other things, it would standardize LMSC practices and (hopefully) force everybody to input measurements...
Although I feel bad that Walt has lots of extra work, I'm glad the policy is now to have people send in measurements to a centralized place. I've never really understood why it's taken this long to implement a change in policy for something that is this important. And I agree that the implementation of E2EEM will help immensely, but I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.
...Realize also that currently the single most common "violation" of the LMSC Standards (ie, USMS' "best practices" document) is the timely uploading of meet results. I may be misremembering, but someone at Convention told me that compliance with the results standard (S8 on the standards document) is something like 50-60% by LMSC. Adding additional measurement requirements to the process thru E2EEM (ie, measurements must be included with the results) would make things worse.
Oh trust me- on this one, I know. I've heard parts of many a LMSC Development conference call talking about this. Although, I think at this point, the compliance rate isn't quite that bad. I think it was that low at implementation, but it's gotten better as the standards have been in place longer.
